Conditional catheter‐related thrombosis free probability and risk‐adapted choices of catheter for lung cancer

Abstract Background Current predictive tools assess catheter‐related thrombosis (CRT) in patients with lung cancer in a static manner at a single time point of catheterization. The subsequent hazard changes over time are unknown. The conditional catheter‐related thrombosis‐free probability (CCFP) ca...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Yanfeng Wang, Chanjuan Cui, Xin Liu, Lei Deng, Ke Yang, Bin Li, Jie Xue, Junying Xie, Wei Cui
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2022-06-01
Series:Thoracic Cancer
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1111/1759-7714.14460
_version_ 1811242106268680192
author Yanfeng Wang
Chanjuan Cui
Xin Liu
Lei Deng
Ke Yang
Bin Li
Jie Xue
Junying Xie
Wei Cui
author_facet Yanfeng Wang
Chanjuan Cui
Xin Liu
Lei Deng
Ke Yang
Bin Li
Jie Xue
Junying Xie
Wei Cui
author_sort Yanfeng Wang
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Background Current predictive tools assess catheter‐related thrombosis (CRT) in patients with lung cancer in a static manner at a single time point of catheterization. The subsequent hazard changes over time are unknown. The conditional catheter‐related thrombosis‐free probability (CCFP) can provide dynamic information on continual CRT‐free expectations. This study aimed to assess the CCFP and hazard rates based on risk categories and various venous access devices (VADs). Methods This retrospective study reviewed 939 patients with lung cancer with peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) or central venous catheters (CVCs) identified at the National Clinical Research Center for Cancer between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2018. The incidence of CRT has also been reported. Patients were stratified into low‐ and high‐risk groups according to multivariate Cox regression analyses. CCFP is defined as the CRT‐free probability given that patients have no CRT for a definite time. Results A total of 507 patients with PICCs and 432 patients with CVCs were included in this study. The 3‐month CCFP increased from 74.2% at catheter insertion to 93.6% at 3 months. The hazards of CRT in the first month were highest (16.4%) and slightly thereafter. The high‐risk group initially had a higher (21.4%) but significantly decreased CRT hazard after 2 months (8.3%), whereas the low‐risk group maintained a comparable lower risk hazard of less than 5% after 1 month. In the overall cohort, patients with CVCs had lower CRT probability than those with PICCs (HR, 1.76; 95% CI: 1.28–2.41; p < 0.01). Further analysis demonstrated that compared with PICCs, CVCs provided a CRT‐free benefit in low‐risk patients (p = 0.02) but not in high‐risk patients (p = 0.06). Conclusions CCFP increased, and the hazards of CRT decreased over time in a risk‐dependent manner in patients with lung cancer. These valuable dynamic data may help optimize risk‐adjusted choices of VADs and risk‐adjusted prophylactic anticoagulation strategies for patients.
first_indexed 2024-04-12T13:47:06Z
format Article
id doaj.art-e4f9e04b07a24cbc8f6af7bcc8a2a36f
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1759-7706
1759-7714
language English
last_indexed 2024-04-12T13:47:06Z
publishDate 2022-06-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Thoracic Cancer
spelling doaj.art-e4f9e04b07a24cbc8f6af7bcc8a2a36f2022-12-22T03:30:39ZengWileyThoracic Cancer1759-77061759-77142022-06-0113121814182110.1111/1759-7714.14460Conditional catheter‐related thrombosis free probability and risk‐adapted choices of catheter for lung cancerYanfeng Wang0Chanjuan Cui1Xin Liu2Lei Deng3Ke Yang4Bin Li5Jie Xue6Junying Xie7Wei Cui8Department of Comprehensive Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College Beijing ChinaDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College Beijing ChinaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center and Cancer Hospital Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College Beijing ChinaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center and Cancer Hospital Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College Beijing ChinaDepartment of Medical Oncology Cancer Hospital of Huanxing Beijing ChinaDepartment of Management Center Cancer Hospital of Huanxing Beijing ChinaDepartment of Management Center Cancer Hospital of Huanxing Beijing ChinaDepartment of Management Center Cancer Hospital of Huanxing Beijing ChinaDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College Beijing ChinaAbstract Background Current predictive tools assess catheter‐related thrombosis (CRT) in patients with lung cancer in a static manner at a single time point of catheterization. The subsequent hazard changes over time are unknown. The conditional catheter‐related thrombosis‐free probability (CCFP) can provide dynamic information on continual CRT‐free expectations. This study aimed to assess the CCFP and hazard rates based on risk categories and various venous access devices (VADs). Methods This retrospective study reviewed 939 patients with lung cancer with peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) or central venous catheters (CVCs) identified at the National Clinical Research Center for Cancer between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2018. The incidence of CRT has also been reported. Patients were stratified into low‐ and high‐risk groups according to multivariate Cox regression analyses. CCFP is defined as the CRT‐free probability given that patients have no CRT for a definite time. Results A total of 507 patients with PICCs and 432 patients with CVCs were included in this study. The 3‐month CCFP increased from 74.2% at catheter insertion to 93.6% at 3 months. The hazards of CRT in the first month were highest (16.4%) and slightly thereafter. The high‐risk group initially had a higher (21.4%) but significantly decreased CRT hazard after 2 months (8.3%), whereas the low‐risk group maintained a comparable lower risk hazard of less than 5% after 1 month. In the overall cohort, patients with CVCs had lower CRT probability than those with PICCs (HR, 1.76; 95% CI: 1.28–2.41; p < 0.01). Further analysis demonstrated that compared with PICCs, CVCs provided a CRT‐free benefit in low‐risk patients (p = 0.02) but not in high‐risk patients (p = 0.06). Conclusions CCFP increased, and the hazards of CRT decreased over time in a risk‐dependent manner in patients with lung cancer. These valuable dynamic data may help optimize risk‐adjusted choices of VADs and risk‐adjusted prophylactic anticoagulation strategies for patients.https://doi.org/10.1111/1759-7714.14460catheter‐related thrombosisconditionallung cancerrisk hazardrisk stratification
spellingShingle Yanfeng Wang
Chanjuan Cui
Xin Liu
Lei Deng
Ke Yang
Bin Li
Jie Xue
Junying Xie
Wei Cui
Conditional catheter‐related thrombosis free probability and risk‐adapted choices of catheter for lung cancer
Thoracic Cancer
catheter‐related thrombosis
conditional
lung cancer
risk hazard
risk stratification
title Conditional catheter‐related thrombosis free probability and risk‐adapted choices of catheter for lung cancer
title_full Conditional catheter‐related thrombosis free probability and risk‐adapted choices of catheter for lung cancer
title_fullStr Conditional catheter‐related thrombosis free probability and risk‐adapted choices of catheter for lung cancer
title_full_unstemmed Conditional catheter‐related thrombosis free probability and risk‐adapted choices of catheter for lung cancer
title_short Conditional catheter‐related thrombosis free probability and risk‐adapted choices of catheter for lung cancer
title_sort conditional catheter related thrombosis free probability and risk adapted choices of catheter for lung cancer
topic catheter‐related thrombosis
conditional
lung cancer
risk hazard
risk stratification
url https://doi.org/10.1111/1759-7714.14460
work_keys_str_mv AT yanfengwang conditionalcatheterrelatedthrombosisfreeprobabilityandriskadaptedchoicesofcatheterforlungcancer
AT chanjuancui conditionalcatheterrelatedthrombosisfreeprobabilityandriskadaptedchoicesofcatheterforlungcancer
AT xinliu conditionalcatheterrelatedthrombosisfreeprobabilityandriskadaptedchoicesofcatheterforlungcancer
AT leideng conditionalcatheterrelatedthrombosisfreeprobabilityandriskadaptedchoicesofcatheterforlungcancer
AT keyang conditionalcatheterrelatedthrombosisfreeprobabilityandriskadaptedchoicesofcatheterforlungcancer
AT binli conditionalcatheterrelatedthrombosisfreeprobabilityandriskadaptedchoicesofcatheterforlungcancer
AT jiexue conditionalcatheterrelatedthrombosisfreeprobabilityandriskadaptedchoicesofcatheterforlungcancer
AT junyingxie conditionalcatheterrelatedthrombosisfreeprobabilityandriskadaptedchoicesofcatheterforlungcancer
AT weicui conditionalcatheterrelatedthrombosisfreeprobabilityandriskadaptedchoicesofcatheterforlungcancer